I wish nader wouldn't have been so successfull in the united states. Perhaps al gore would be president now if it wassdadwn't for him.

BlueStar

06-05-2002, 02:13 AM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ham:
I wish nader wouldn't have been so successfull in the united states. Perhaps al gore would be president now if it wassdadwn't for him. </font>

No. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Nader.

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

13

06-05-2002, 02:50 AM

I wouldn't even call the nader campaign successful since it didn't meet the voter requirement for funding

Al Gore lost in certain key states, particularly his own, simply because of NRA inflence. So, I wouldn't really fault the nader extremists for the hell we now live in.

At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances. That sense was severely shaken in the now notorious officiating during Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.

Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6....When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games.

This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials.

Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general. When the distinguished basketball writer for the USA Today, David DuPree, can say: "I've been covering the NBA for 30 years, and it's the poorest officiating in an important game I've ever seen," when Wilbon writes that "The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series would be extended until Sunday; three referees did..." when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars.

Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically?

In a February interview with David DuPree of USA Today, he asked you "Why aren't coaches and players allowed to criticize the referees?" You said, "...we don't want people questioning the integrity of officials. ...It just doesn't pay for us to do anything other than focus people on the game itself rather than the officiating." "Integrity" which we take you to mean "professionalism" of the referees has to be earned and when it is not, it has to be questioned. You and your league have a large and growing credibility problem. Referees are human and make mistakes, but there comes a point that goes beyond any random display of poor performance. That point was reached in Game 6 which took away the Sacramento Kings Western Conference victory.

It seems that you have a choice. You can continue to exercise your absolute power to do nothing. Or you can initiate a review and if all these observers and fans turn out to be right, issue, together with the referees, an apology to the Sacramento Kings and forthrightly admit decisive incompetence during Game 6, especially in the crucial fourth quarter.

You should know, however, that absolute power, if you choose the former course of inaction, invites the time when it is challenged and changed – whether by more withdrawal of fans or by more formal legal or legislative action. No government in our country can lawfully stifle free speech and fine those who exercise it; the NBA under present circumstances can both stifle and fine players and coaches who speak up. There is no guarantee that this tyrannical status quo will remain stable over time, should you refuse to bend to reason and the reality of what occurred. A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs.

<font color=#ADD8E6>Well, the political "experts" predicted prior to the election that whoever took Pennsylvania and Florida would be the winner. PA and FL were the key states in that election. And Gore won PA and depending on how you count the votes Gore won FL. And let's not forget that Gore won the popular vote.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Well, the political "experts" predicted prior to the election that whoever took Pennsylvania and Florida would be the winner. PA and FL were the key states in that election. And Gore won PA and depending on how you count the votes Gore won FL. And let's not forget that Gore won the popular vote.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
No. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Nader.

</font>

I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore.

If gore had been elected nearly everything would be the same as it is right now. It's a fine message to send to people: "Don't dissent, we need you to fight off someone using evil black magic against our dark-gray magic weilding wizard beard man! stop lollygagging around with that guy who could actually make all of this irrelivant"

sawdust restaurants

06-05-2002, 11:04 AM

It doesn't make me any less upset about the 2000 election, but Nader does indeed kick ass.

TheHappiestBoyInTheWorld

06-05-2002, 01:15 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by if there is a llama:
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore.</font>

Samantha is the only person in this thread who knows what she's talking about. God I love that gal. The rest of you have the thinking capacity of a squid, and I love how all the closet-conservatives come out in threads like this. I'm surprised Affectation and Tweedyburd haven't graced us with their bullshit.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by if there is a llama:
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore.</font>

Ass Kicking #1:
Are you by chance going to Bob's College to earn your education? If so, you should ask for your $10 back. You clearly haven't learned shit. President Gore ran a stellar campaign and had thousands of volunteers working 24 hours a day for him. Samantha has it right. You are totally underestimating the impact of Nader. Had Nader not been involved, Gore would have won Flordia, Oregon, and New Hampshire, which would have given him 296 votes, and would have beat Governor Bush by 50 some electoral votes. Who cares if he lost his home state? The Lakers don't win every home game do they? Shit happens sometimes. This wasn't a race for TN governor.

Ass Kicking #2:
The reason for Gore's "loss" is simple: Idiot "liberals" like you (I could name 50 more on this board), who know nothing about giving up a little of your own selfish ideology for the good of the Party and think nothing about how the consequences of jumping ship far outweigh the benefits, seem to believe that you are really accomplishing something here. Well you're not, unless you think that putting Bush in office is an accomplishment, so stop with the theatrics you stupid shits.

Ass Kicking #3:
You want to claim that Gore and Bush are no different? Fine, go ahead. I've already made you look like an ass (quite easily might I add). But I don't seem to recall Gore's platform ******* killing a surplus and ringing up a huge deficit, opting out of environmental pacts, cutting rich people's taxes, and doing nothing for the millions of people who can't get access to health care. I'm sure there's more, but I've made my point.

Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.

Again, I'm not singling you out. There are at least 50 other dumbasses on this board who believe the same way you do. I'm going back to work now.

obscured01

06-05-2002, 01:51 PM

<font color="FB7BF6">What do you mean by 'closet conservative'? Do you think most people here have a problem professing what their standpoint on most things is? Don't make broad generalizations about all conservatives just because you don't agree with a few's stand points.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by if there is a llama:
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. </font>

i agree with your assertion, but the fact remains that if nader had not run al gore would be president of the united states and we'd all have microchips in our heads

the two things in your argument are not mutually exclusive

mpp

06-05-2002, 02:07 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Gore is the President:
Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.

</font>

the US court system is powerless without the executive branch; if the executive decided not to follow the USSC's decision then it would not be unconstitutional; in reality, clinton could have said "no way" to the USSC just like the executive did in the early 1950's (brown decision)

bittertrance

06-05-2002, 02:30 PM

this is a basketball thread dammit

Graveflower

06-05-2002, 03:05 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>Well, let's suppose that all the votes Nader got in Florida had gone to Gore (like they most likely would have)...

</font>

It's not Nader's fault Gore lost. The people who would vote for Nader (like me) voted for him because, guess what? THEY DIDN'T WANT GORE TO BE PRESIDENT.

BlueStar

06-05-2002, 03:16 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Gore is the President:
Samantha is the only person in this thread who knows what she's talking about. God I love that gal.

Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.
</font>

<3

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar

06-05-2002, 03:17 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Graveflower:
It's not Nader's fault Gore lost. The people who would vote for Nader (like me) voted for him because, guess what? THEY DIDN'T WANT GORE TO BE PRESIDENT.</font>

So, in other words, they wanted Bush to be president? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Johnny Zoloft

06-05-2002, 03:34 PM

wow. that's a lot to read. i don't like you that much.

Homerpalooza

06-05-2002, 03:37 PM

I can't believe people are still so bitter about an election that happened over 18 months ago.

I voted for Nader because I agreed with his policies the most. Gore's campaign was so poorly run that, even without Nader, he would have been running neck and neck with Bush. You guys can remain in denial, but ultimately it's Al Gore's fault for not winning that election. You can blame Nader if it makes you feel better, but come on, Gore blew it. Let's move on.

13

06-05-2002, 03:50 PM

I still think it's a little short sighted to believe that Nader is the main reason why Bush is in office today. There are many reasons why Gore lost ranging from the NRA party ("A Bush win will be akin to having the NRA in the office") to Gore's personality, which seemed to be a key issue among the undecided- which was something that drove me absolutely nuts. Nader is just a scapegoat.

I think it's a common misconception that a vote for Nader translates to a vote for Gore if Nader wasn't in the election race.It's not guaranteed that those who voted for Nader would have even voted in the first place. It would've been a silent protest to the country's two party system. In regards to Florida, it's still a republican territory: its governed by the Bush family; and has a strong Cuban American republican demographic.

Even so, I still regard the belief that Gore didn't lose the election, he had it taken away from him- by the powers that be. Finding a scapegoat for that sad fact is alot harder than just lazily pointing at Nader.

Also, running a flawless campaing isn't exclusive to a diligent staff working 24-7. Gore ran a poor campaign, and consequently lost most of the Democratic party's confidence. That's why Daschle, and even Lieberman are now considered as candidates for 2004.

Also, running a flawless campaing isn't exclusive to a diligent staff working 24-7. Gore ran a poor campaign, and consequently lost most of the Democratic party's confidence. That's why Daschle, and even Lieberman are now considered as candidates for 2004.
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Presidential campaigns are tough. There is no set of guidelines that will work everytime. What helped one guy win one year could cause another guy to lose another year. Bush's campaign certainly wasn't well run either. Based on the numbers, though, the fact remains that, while it still would have been close, if Nader had not run Gore would have won.

And Daschle most likely won't run for the presidency. Neither will Gephardt. They are too focused on being leaders in Congress. The current front runners for the Democratic nomination are John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina.

After the election this November, Democrats will control both the Senate and the House. And the war on terror will take its toll on Bush's popularity. And we will see a Democrat elected president in 2004.

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

DeviousJ

06-05-2002, 06:05 PM

See, the idea about demorcracy is that you vote for the person and the party who best represents your ideals and views, not voting for the person you dislike the least out of the two main parties. Like people have said, some voters rejected the 2-party system, and voted for their candidate, and you can't automatically assume everyone who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been an option. Stop using Nader as a scapegoat for the election results - since he won anyway, shouldn't you be more concerned by the fact Bush managed to get into power, not that Gore winning Nader's votes would have made such a manipulation more difficult?

And Daschle most likely won't run for the presidency. Neither will Gephardt. They are too focused on being leaders in Congress. The current front runners for the Democratic nomination are John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina.

</font>

Ok, I owe you a coke.

But Daschle said in an interview on Meet the Press that the only determining factor regarding his decision to run for election is his family.

I really don't care who runs as long as the republican party is out of office, and before this turns into another 'me' decade.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
So, in other words, they wanted Bush to be president? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

</font>

That's fucking ridiculous. People shouldn't vote with idiotic ideas like that in their head, they should vote for who they want to be president. I acknowledge the huge difference between Gore and Bush and would have rather had Gore in office, but I wanted to vote for Nader, because I'd rather have him in office over Gore. I don't care if voting for Nader didn't accomplish anything, it certainly wouldn't have accomplished anything if everyone who would have voted for him voted for someone who didn't represent their ideals.

Irrelevant

06-05-2002, 07:36 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
So, in other words, they wanted Bush to be president? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.</font>

voting shouldn't be a choice between the lesser of two evils. it's because of people who think like this that we're stuck in this two-party system.

So very sad about me

06-05-2002, 07:51 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
voting shouldn't be a choice between the lesser of two evils. it's because of people who think like this that we're stuck in this two-party system.</font>

Exactly....

Besides, I'd love to see the stats on the other tiny parties vote tallies. People are so quick to assume that Nader is the only voter that changed things, but there's about 10 different parties out there, whose votes could have equalled Nader's.
It bothers me so much to see Nader being blamed for the faults of Gore's campaign. So what if a campaign is run well 24/7? In the end, it all comes down to ideals. Jello Biafra ran for president....he could have had the most flawless campaign in history, and he still wouldn't have gotten in.
It frustrates me to see that the country requires 5% for govt campaign support....its frustrating b/c its such a small amount, yet so unattainable b/c angry liberals who are still bitter over the election put blame on other parties, and slow progress.
I am very interested to see who will be running in 2004. 2000 for me was quite boring.

------------------
http://www.wsu.edu/~swinn/sex.gif
You want to sleep with common people like me (http://smampy.livejournal.com)

After the election this November, Democrats will control both the Senate and the House. And the war on terror will take its toll on Bush's popularity. And we will see a Democrat elected president in 2004.

</font>

i doubt it. i think the way that bush has been handing the situation may get him another term.

bush 2004! http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

------------------
"i've heard of unisex, but i've never had it."-monty python.

Undone

06-05-2002, 11:46 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
voting shouldn't be a choice between the lesser of two evils. it's because of people who think like this that we're stuck in this two-party system.</font>

<font color="CC33CC">Hurray for those who make my posts very short. Please keep spurting my opinions so I can lazily nod my head in agreement.

BlueStar

06-06-2002, 12:14 AM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
it's because of people who think like this that we're stuck in this two-party system.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>I personally don't think like that. However, that's simply the way it is. In such a close election, unfortunately a vote for Nader meant a vote for Bush. The two-party system isn't what is to blame...the electoral college is. (*note: I am not expressing any sort of personal opinion about our current party system or the electoral college, nor am I saying that we should abolish the electoral college.)

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

bittertrance

06-06-2002, 12:23 AM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6> In such a close erection,

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>
After the election this November, Democrats will control both the Senate and the House. And the war on terror will take its toll on Bush's popularity. And we will see a Democrat elected president in 2004.
</font>

Exactly, which is why things need to be changed. When third parties start to make inroads, and become viable candidates, more people will vote for them, instead of defaulting to one of the two main parties. As support becomes more and more visible, they will gain popularity, and eventually become a real third option. It's a slow process, but it's important to work to break the deadlock

The Gaddrow

06-06-2002, 07:15 AM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
this is a basketball thread dammit</font>
Haha. I thought so, that's the only reason that I clicked it! Boo to you who care about our country! http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Debaser

06-06-2002, 11:32 AM

Nader would have been president now if all those dumbasses hadn't voted for gore or bush...

sickbadthing

06-06-2002, 12:01 PM

Do most of you really understand what the Green Party stands for?

http://www.greenparty.org/values.html

NO.

Some of that I agree with, but I think that most of it is pie in the sky PC bullshit and hyperbole. And the funny thing is that I'd always rather vote Green than Republican or Democrat. Call it a protest vote or whatever. It's still not voting what I believe and I don't think there are any politicians who are representing "me". The closest are the Libertarians and they are a fucking joke. I hate politics and I hate voting and I hate politicians. When I get thinking about how much I hate it I begin to thinking like Noyen who hopes for a mass eradication of human life throughout the world so we can start over. FUCK EVERYONE AND THEIR STUPID BELIEFS. Any party is going to have a hidden agenda. Those stupid Green hippies would be as corrupt as the rest in a matter of years. People involved in politics are fucking liars and they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Even if they are doing things beneficial to others, it's an ego trip and they are getting something out of it.

FUCK RALPH NADER.

He's a liberal fucking panty waist.

Undone

06-06-2002, 01:20 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sickbadthing:
Do most of you really understand what the Green Party stands for?

http://www.greenparty.org/values.html

NO.

Some of that I agree with, but I think that most of it is pie in the sky PC bullshit and hyperbole. And the funny thing is that I'd always rather vote Green than Republican or Democrat. Call it a protest vote or whatever. It's still not voting what I believe and I don't think there are any politicians who are representing "me". The closest are the Libertarians and they are a fucking joke. I hate politics and I hate voting and I hate politicians. When I get thinking about how much I hate it I begin to thinking like Noyen who hopes for a mass eradication of human life throughout the world so we can start over. FUCK EVERYONE AND THEIR STUPID BELIEFS. Any party is going to have a hidden agenda. Those stupid Green hippies would be as corrupt as the rest in a matter of years. People involved in politics are fucking liars and they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Even if they are doing things beneficial to others, it's an ego trip and they are getting something out of it.

FUCK RALPH NADER.

He's a liberal fucking panty waist.

</font>

<font color="CC33CC">*keeps on nodding lazily*

sawdust restaurants

06-06-2002, 02:08 PM

You're naive as hell if you think the two-party system is going to change anytime soon. Third parties in American politics make their mark, get their asses kicked in presidential elections, leave, and then after they leave, they generally get what they wanted in the first place.

The Populists/William Jennings Bryan were way more popular 100-110 years ago than Nader is today, and even then, the only way WJB could get close to winning the presidential election was by merging with the Democrats in 1896--and he STILL lost. The Populists dissolved soon after.

If you think Nader is any different at his chances for legitimacy, you're wrong. I love the guy, but there's no way in hell it's ever going to happen.

However--look at what happened after the Populists broke up. They wanted direct election of Senators; they got it in 1920 (I think). They wanted an eight-hour working day; they got it. They wanted pensions; they got them. They wanted civil service reform; they got it. They wanted immigration reform; they got it. That is how third parties make their mark on American politics, and that's how Nader is going to affect us 25 years form now.

[This message has been edited by sawdust restaurants (edited 06-06-2002).]

professional wannabe

06-06-2002, 03:13 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ham:
I wish nader wouldn't have been so successfull in the united states. Perhaps al gore would be president now if it wassdadwn't for him. </font>

not necessarily. if you ask me, you shouldn't necessarily think that all Nader votes would've gone to Gore, had he not run in 2000. in fact, i remember reading some polls in some newspaper, which showed that some people who voted for Nader would've voted for Bush had he not run(and yes, this is true). i voted for Nader, since i personally agreed with his views the most.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Gore is the President:
Samantha is the only person in this thread who knows what she's talking about. God I love that gal. The rest of you have the thinking capacity of a squid, and I love how all the closet-conservatives come out in threads like this. I'm surprised Affectation and Tweedyburd haven't graced us with their bullshit.

Ass Kicking #1:
Are you by chance going to Bob's College to earn your education? If so, you should ask for your $10 back. You clearly haven't learned shit. President Gore ran a stellar campaign and had thousands of volunteers working 24 hours a day for him. Samantha has it right. You are totally underestimating the impact of Nader. Had Nader not been involved, Gore would have won Flordia, Oregon, and New Hampshire, which would have given him 296 votes, and would have beat Governor Bush by 50 some electoral votes. Who cares if he lost his home state? The Lakers don't win every home game do they? Shit happens sometimes. This wasn't a race for TN governor.

Ass Kicking #2:
The reason for Gore's "loss" is simple: Idiot "liberals" like you (I could name 50 more on this board), who know nothing about giving up a little of your own selfish ideology for the good of the Party and think nothing about how the consequences of jumping ship far outweigh the benefits, seem to believe that you are really accomplishing something here. Well you're not, unless you think that putting Bush in office is an accomplishment, so stop with the theatrics you stupid shits.

Ass Kicking #3:
You want to claim that Gore and Bush are no different? Fine, go ahead. I've already made you look like an ass (quite easily might I add). But I don't seem to recall Gore's platform ******* killing a surplus and ringing up a huge deficit, opting out of environmental pacts, cutting rich people's taxes, and doing nothing for the millions of people who can't get access to health care. I'm sure there's more, but I've made my point.

Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.

Again, I'm not singling you out. There are at least 50 other dumbasses on this board who believe the same way you do. I'm going back to work now. </font>

fuck you, you're such an annoying troll that should never have registered for ***phoria in the first place. i hate your continual posts moaning Gore's loss. even my friend darcy_is_sexy agrees with me that you're annoying, and he hates you too. two thumbs down for that post.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by if there is a llama:
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore. </font>

great post. two thumbs up.
[font color=black]

[This message has been edited by professional wannabe (edited 06-06-2002).]

professional wannabe

06-06-2002, 03:19 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
So, in other words, they wanted Bush to be president? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. </font>

no, they wanted Nader to be president, since they thought him to be the best candidate. oh, and fuck all those dipshit people blasting Nader on this board...

BlueStar

06-06-2002, 04:57 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by professional wannabe:
no, they wanted Nader to be president, since they thought him to be the best candidate. oh, and fuck all those dipshit people blasting Nader on this board...</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>In such a close election, unfortunately a vote for Nader meant a vote for Bush.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>And yes, all the Nader votes would not have gone to Gore. But, enough of the Nader votes would have gone to Gore to ensure that he won the electoral vote (particularly in the state of Florida).

Unfortuantely, the system is not going to change overnight. So, unfortuantely, you need to consider other factors when casting your vote. I applauded Perot's presidential bids. I think he did a decent amount as far as bringing attention to 3rd party candidates, etc. And we can even sit here and argue that Perot helped take votes away from Bush and Dole. But, those elections were not that seriously close. Clinton would have won even if Perot hadn't run. And yeah, go ahead and vote for Nader. I have no problem with that. However, those who voted for Nader in key states essentially voted for Bush and perhaps should have considered other factos when casting their vote. Unfortunately, that's just how it is. *shrug*

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

BlueStar

06-06-2002, 05:04 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:
You're naive as hell if you think the two-party system is going to change anytime soon. Third parties in American politics make their mark, get their asses kicked in presidential elections, leave, and then after they leave, they generally get what they wanted in the first place.

The Populists/William Jennings Bryan were way more popular 100-110 years ago than Nader is today, and even then, the only way WJB could get close to winning the presidential election was by merging with the Democrats in 1896--and he STILL lost. The Populists dissolved soon after.

If you think Nader is any different at his chances for legitimacy, you're wrong. I love the guy, but there's no way in hell it's ever going to happen.

However--look at what happened after the Populists broke up. They wanted direct election of Senators; they got it in 1920 (I think). They wanted an eight-hour working day; they got it. They wanted pensions; they got them. They wanted civil service reform; they got it. They wanted immigration reform; they got it. That is how third parties make their mark on American politics, and that's how Nader is going to affect us 25 years form now.
</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>*applause*

Contrary to popular belief, I am actually not a Democrat and am a registered member of the Working Families Party of New York State. New York State is a great example of just what 3rd parties can do and the influence they can have. However, New York is unique in that it has a multi-ticket system. For example, in 2000, Gore and Hillary Clinton ran on the Democract, Working Families, and a bunch of other tickets. One of the philosophies behind choosing which candidate to run (for the Working Families Party anyway) is to choose a candidate that has a chance of winning. You cannot create the change you want unless you can win. So, for example, the amount of votes received by Hillary Clinton on the Working Families Party ticket was enough to make Clinton have to pay attention to us. If she doesn't, she knows that she will lose all the votes in the next election. Blah. Ummm...yeah. I just think New York State has a great system in place and it would be interesting to see more states adopt it.

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Irrelevant

06-06-2002, 10:21 PM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>I personally don't think like that. However, that's simply the way it is. In such a close election, unfortunately a vote for Nader meant a vote for Bush.</font>

i bet you think that everyone who didn't vote at all obviously voted for Bush as well. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

So, for example, the amount of votes received by Hillary Clinton on the Working Families Party ticket was enough to make Clinton have to pay attention to us. If she doesn't, she knows that she will lose all the votes in the next election.
</font>

Gore learned this lesson the hard way. By not addressing the needs and wants of many Nader supporters (who were more likely to support Gore than Bush), he lost out on their votes. This is why Gore lost the election (among other reasons).

David

13

06-07-2002, 03:17 AM

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BlueStar:
<font color=#ADD8E6>And yes, all the Nader votes would not have gone to Gore. But, enough of the Nader votes would have gone to Gore to ensure that he won the electoral vote (particularly in the state of Florida).

</font>

I used to think that way before my significant other at the time, a pro nader nut, brainwashed me. I felt that I had to change my opinion only because I cared about her.